monkeysan

Vlad

This may be the kiss of death this week, but big props for a well-argued point. People may disagree, but you've made a more than plausible counter-argument.

monkeysan
aka Aaron Ruby

Your comments: "a and g are both 54Mbit varients. 200 divided by 54 doesn't equal 10. not using any normal earth math."

Well, 010111, your math is right, but your using bad data.

a and g are indeed 54Mbit variants, *theoretically*. Typically they achieve somewhere around
25Mbit.

The n variant has a theoretical maximum of 500Mbit, but typically will achieve around 200MBit.
Let's do the math then:

Theoretical maximums-- 500Mbit/54Mbit = ~10X
Typical maximums-- 200Mbit/25Mbit = 8X

The above is why I reported "nearly ten times".


As to the following:

"enough to stream DVD-quality content wirelessly from a Mac (and possibly a PC)."

You said: they already said iTV would work on a PC running iTunes as well as Macs... why the parenthetical "possibly"?

I'll tell you why I said that. Even though it's been reported elsewhere that PCs running iTunes can use iTV, we still don't know what's inside iTV, it's not definitive, since the product won't ship till as late as Q207.

Given that I was using the ability of iTV to stream DVD-quality rather than simply near-DVD quality (which was all that has been announced), I didn't think it was accurate not to qualify the statement. This is especially true given the leap I made regarding the possibility of writing video card drivers that send the graphic stream to a network port rather than the monitor out connection on the card itself.

You said: those two errors alone combined with it coming from some genius at Business Week looking to fill inches tells me this article is probably 80% imaginary.

I'm not a genius at Businessweek. I'm a genius who has a column at Next-Gen that was syndicated by Businessweek.
I don't care how many inches they do or don't need, and I have no control over whether they use my work.

The article is imaginary. It's speculative. But if you don't think Apple will use this platform, if successful, to *at minimum* include interactive content and casual gaming in their business model, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The article was really about Trojan Horses as pimped by Sony and MS. My point was simply that both have so far failed miserably to achieve that goal.

I think that Apple may be in a much better position to make gaming a ubiquitous option in our living rooms.

I'm *not* saying that they will *kill* either Sony of MS or even try to compete with them directly.

I many people are making assumptions having not read the original piece and taking what I wrote out of context.

Cheers,


monkeysan

I would simply ask folks to read the actual article.

Most of the criticisms expressed here are addressed in the piece.

Yes, it's a lot of what-ifs, but remember that iTV's generation times are likely to be MUCHO shorter than the console folks. I'm not suggesting that Apple's gonna come right out of the gate with a device to compete with PS3 or X360.

Instead, I think that Apple may have a route to the Holy Grail of Digital Convergence in our living rooms that both Sony and MS have completely missed out on so far, despite their loud promises.

Cheers


Aaron Ruby